Coming Spruce Budworm Outbreak: Initial Risk Assessment and

Preparation & Response Recommendations

For Maine’s Forestry Community

Keeping Maine’s Forests Implementation CommitteeAugusta, Maine

November 18, 2014

Robert G. WagnerCFRU Director

2014 Quebec SBW Outbreak Map

Source: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec

Growth Spruce-fir Defoliation by SBW Outbreak in Quebec 2005-2014

Source: Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec

July 2013 -North of Forestville, QC.

90+% of the fir had damage. Some of the spruce was damaged. The photos don't show it, but this is the condition affecting every stand on every hill and valley in the region. Currently there are 2.5 million ha in Quebec in a similar condition.

Only a stand sprayed twice with Btk was green (not shown). Quebec only sprayed 120,000 ha this year.

Ked Coffin, JD Irving

Thank You!

Thank You!

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

mill

ions

of

acre

s

mill

ions

of

acre

sSeries 1

Series 2

Series 3

SBW Status in New Brunswick

9

Jeremy Gullison, NBDNR

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

mill

ions

of

acre

s

mill

ions

of

acre

s

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

SBW Trapping and Defoliation in Maine 1955-2013

Start of next Maine outbreak

Maine’s SBW Preparation & Response

Strategy

SBW Preparation & Response Plan Approach

• Develop risk assessment for Maine (wood supply impact analysis began by CFRU in 2010)

• Focus on those that will be directly affected (large landowners / mills)

• Role of public institutions:

• State government (MFS) – Legislated forest protection mandate

• University of Maine (research, education, and outreach mandate)

• Workout landowner and state roles and responsibilities

• Develop joint industry (MFPC), state (MFS), and university (CFRU) preparation and response recommendations

• Recognized that plan will need to be revised and augmented with feedback from others that will be impacted or have strong interest in issue:

• Family forest owners

• Municipalities

• Recreation and tourism groups

• Environmental groups

• Interested members of public

Maine SBW Task Force

Task Force Leaders:

• University of Maine

• Bob Wagner, CFRU Director

• Maine Forest Service

• Doug Denico, Director

• Maine Forest Products Council

• Patrick Strauch, Executive Director

Maine SBW Task Force

Objectives:

• Develop Risk Assessment

• Develop Preparation & Response Recommendations for:• forest managers/landowners, forest products

industry, state government, wildlife biologists, and forest researchers

• Solicit feedback from others that will be impacted or have strong interest in SBW

• Raise awareness about coming outbreak

SBW Task Teams

SBW Task Teams

SBW Task Teams

>65 Expert Contributors! SBW Task

Team Task Team Contributors Wood Supply & Economic Impacts

Chris Hennigar (UNB), Erin Simons (UMaine), Kasey Legaard (UMaine), Ken Laustsen (MFS), William McWilliams (FIA), Aaron Weiskittel (UMaine), Ernest Bowling (Sewall Co.), Peter Triandafillou (Huber), Ian Prior (7-Islands), Todd Gabe (UMaine), Rob Lilieholm (UMaine), Lloyd Irland (The Irland Group)

Monitoring & Protection

Louis Morneau (MFFP QC), Blake Brunsdon (Irving), Brian Sturtevant (UMN), Mike Devine (MFS), Gary Fish (MBPC), Lebelle Hicks (MBPC), Gordon Mott (USFS, retired), Bud Brown (Consulting Entomologist), Charlene Donahue (MFS)

Forest Management Strategies

Kip Nichols (7 Islands), Tom Charles (BPL), Kenny Ferguson (Huber), Gordon Mott, (USFS, retired), Dave Wilson (Katahdin Forest Management)

Policy, Regulatory, & Funding Strategies

Joel Swanton (FRA), Mark Doty (Plum Creek), Jim Contino (Verso), Doug Denico (MFS), Don Mansius (MFS), Peter Triandafillou (Huber), Don Tardie (Consultant), Marcia McKeague (Katahdin), Bill Ferdinand (Plum Creek), John Cashwell (Consultant), Michele MacLean (MFPC), Tom Doak (SWOAM) Don Mansius (MFS), Blake Brunsdon (Irving), Chuck Gadzik (LandVest)

Wildlife Habitat Issues

Ryan Robicheau (MDIFW), Walter Jakubas (MDIFW), Phillip deMaynadier (MDIFW), Joe Wiley (MDIFW), Erin Simons (UMaine), Ray Ary (Plum Creek), John Gilbert (JD Irving), Henning Stabins (Plum Creek), Jennifer Vashon (MDIFW), Andrew Cutko (MNAP), Merry Gallagher (MDIFW)

Public Communications & Outreach

Roberta Scruggs (MFPC), Kevin Doran (MFS), Sherry Huber (Maine Tree)

Research Needs Bill Livingston (UMaine), Michel Huot (MFFP QC), Dave MacClean (UNB), Vince Nealis (CFS), Dave Struble (MFS), Andrew Willette (JDI), Lloyd Irland (Irland Group), Brian Sturtevant (UMN)

SBW Task Force Timeline• Task Force Formed (Summer 2013)

• Task Teams formed (September 2013)

• Task Team work (October 2013 – May 2014)

• Task teams complete draft report sections (June 1, 2014)

• 1st DRAFT completed (August 1, 2014)

• 1st DRAFT review by Task Team members completed (October 15, 2014)

• Publicly reviewable DRAFT completed (November 9, 2014)

• Public review period begins with Keeping Maine’s Forest (November 18, 2014)

• Feedback solicitation from SWOAM, municipalities, recreation and tourism groups, others (Nov 2014 – Feb 2015)

• Final report completed (April 2015)

Publicly Reviewable DRAFT Report Complete!

Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment

Balsam fir concentrations (as depicted on map) by average volume (ft3/acre) by county in Maine, 2008. (Source: McCaskill et al. 2011)

5.8 million acres of spruce-fir stands at risk of some level of defoliation, leading to reduced tree growth and mortality over wide areas.

Distribution of Spruce-Fir Forest Type in Maine counties, 2008 (Source: McCaskill et al. 2011).

Risk Assessment

Map of approximately 10 million acres of northern Maine showing areas of forestland classified based on susceptibility to defoliation by SBW. (Source: Legaard et al. 2013)

Water /no data

Non-host for est

Mixed with red/black spruce

Mixed with fir /white spruce

Red/black spruce

Young fir /white spruce

Matu re fir /white spruce

Low Susceptibility

High Susceptibility

Potential Spruce-fir Yield Reductions

• Two studies completed:

• Hennigar et al. 2013 – CFRU

• Legaard et al. 2013 – NSRC

• Both studies conclude:

• 15% to 30% maximum annual reduction in spruce-fir volume or biomass for moderate to severe SBW outbreak

• Slow (40-year) recovery of spruce-fir following peak impact of outbreak

• Impact similar (both severity and rate of recovery) regardless of when outbreak occurs over next few decades

Good News!Hennigar et al. (2013) concluded that nearly all spruce-fir volume losses can be prevented by:

• Adaptive harvesting

• Reducing area of high-risk stands (i.e., those with high balsam fir and white spruce composition) ahead of outbreak

• Foliage protection

• B.t. applications to high risk and valuable stands

• Only 20% of area of affected area needs to be treated

• Salvage logging

• Dead and dying trees

Projected Cumulative Spruce-fir Volume Reductions Under Various

Management Scenarios

-12.7

-7.4

-3.1 -2.6

2.0

-6.4

-3.7

-1.5 -1.3

1.0

-16.0

-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

Spruce-firv

olum

eredu

con

(millioncords)

Poten al Cumula ve Wood Supply Impact on Balsam Fir and Sprucerela ve to 2006-10 Harvest Levels

Same as 1970s-80s outbreak

50% of 1970s-80s outbreak

No Management With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on

With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on +

Par al Salvage

With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on +

Salvage

With Adap veHarvest Planning

only

From Hennigar et al. 2013

Projected Maximum Annual Spruce-fir Volume Reduction Under Various

Mitigation Scenarios

-494

-333

-181-202

0

-247

-166

-90 -101

0

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100Sp

ruce-firv

olum

eredu

con

(tho

usan

dcords)

Poten al Maximum Annual Wood Supply Impact on Balsam Fir andSpruce rela ve to 2006-10 Harvest Levels

Same as 1970s-80s outbreak

50% of 1970s-80s outbreak

No Management With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on

With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on +

Par al Salvage

With Adap veHarvest Planning +20% Bt Protec on +

Salvage

With Adap veHarvest Planning

only

From Hennigar et al. 2013

Economic Impact - Projected Maximum Annual Spruce-fir Loss

SBW Outbreak Scenario

Forest Management

Response Scenario

Estimated Total Direct Economic Impact to Forest

Products Industry

Estimated Total Indirect Economic Impact to Maine

Estimated TOTAL Economic Impact

to Maine

Same as 1970s-80s outbreak on

current forest

Worst Case – No Management -$505 million -$290 million -$795 million

Approximately 50% of 1970s-

80s outbreak on current forest

Worst Case – No Management -$252 million -$145 million -$397 million

ASSUMPTIONS:• No substitutions made for lost spruce-fir volume during

outbreak• No change in market price of spruce-fir wood with

increased supply during outbreak• No real price change in spruce-fir stumpage over time

Many Factors Different Today Than During 1970s Outbreak

• Less spruce-fir forest

• Younger spruce-fir forest

• TIMO & REIT ownership

• Better road system

• Better forest management technology

• More diverse forest products

• Higher mill capacity

• More diverse markets

• Less dependence on spruce-fir

• Better logging technology

• Better protection technology

• More policy & regulations

• Lower funding levels in government & industry

• More sensitive political environment

• Less entomology expertise

Challenges during coming outbreak will be very different than in 1970s-80s

Coming outbreak may not be as severe as last one

• Less spruce-fir forest

• Younger spruce-fir forest

• More mixedwood stands due to partial cutting

• Pattern of alternating moderate and severe outbreaks (1970s was severe)

• Current outbreak center further north and out of prevailing winds compared to 1970s

• Reduced dependency on spruce-fir as mill furnish

• Climate models suggest less favorable conditions in Maine (However, QC outbreak is severe)

Strictly speculative at this stage, but interesting indicators

Preparation & Response

Recommendations

Recommendations

>70 specific recommendations provided on:

• Monitoring strategies

• Forest management strategies

• Protection options

• Policy, regulatory & funding issues

• Wildlife habitat issues

• Public communications & outreach

• Research priorities

Monitoring Recommendations

• Engaging public in SBW monitoring

• Increasing number of pheromone traps in across northern Maine

• Continuing current light trapping system across northern Maine

• Conducting targeted aerial surveys (plane-based observers) across northern Maine

• Conducting egg mass or L-2 larval survey if pheromone trapping and/or defoliation surveys indicate a high probability of population intensification

Forest Management Recommendations

• 6-level stand risk categories based on species composition, productivity, age, value, access, and location

• Map location, condition, and concentration of high-risk stands

• Shift harvesting now and in coming years towards merchantable high-risk stands

• Stop precommercial and commercial thinning in stands where balsam fir and white spruce make up >50% of the composition

• Prepare action plans to salvage (or pre-salvage) trees that will likely be lost

• Seek and encourage markets for low-value trees

Protection Recommendations

• 12 insecticide products with 3 active ingredients (B.t.k., tebufenozide, and carbaryl) are approved by MBPC for aerial application over naturally regenerated forests to control SBW

• Assess and map high-risk and high-value stands that they may be candidates for insecticide protection

• MFS should develop plans for providing technical assistance on SBW management to landowners

• MFS, MFPC, and UMaine should work collaboratively to develop a communications strategy about the SBW, its effects, and the need for insecticide applications for forest protection in some situations

Policy, Regulatory & Funding Recommendations

• Review Spruce Budworm Management Act to determine whether changes are needed given changes in roles and responsibilities of MFS and private landowners

• Determine personnel, financial, and timing needs for SBW monitoring within MFS and landowners

• Building and expanding MFS training programs and protocols for a joint state and landowner monitoring program

• Large landowners anticipating need for insecticide applications should explore cooperative organization for delivering aerial insecticide applications

• MBPC and MFS should work with insecticide manufacturers to ensure that products are available in sufficient quantities, and all regulatory compliance requirements have been met

Wildlife Recommendations

Specific recommendations provided for:

• Mature softwood songbirds

• Deer wintering areas (DWAs)

• Riparian zones and coldwater fish habitat

• Early/mid-successional species of concern (lynx / snowshoe hare / moose)

• Rare northern butterfly habitat

• High-elevation habitats and bird species

Public Communications & Outreach Recommendations

Specific recommendations provided for:

• Public media

• Family forest owners

• Schools

• Environmental NGOs

• Government

• Forest industry

• Recreation and tourism groups

Research Recommendations

Short, medium, and long-term priorities provided for:

• SBW monitoring

• Protection

• Forest management

• Wildlife habitat management

Questions?